Marin Voice: Prop. 32 is political reform we need

FOR CITIZENS dismayed with the status quo in Sacramento, Proposition 32 — the "Paycheck Protection" Initiative — is arguably the most important state item on the ballot in November and yet most people know little or nothing about it.

Proposition 32 simply bans unions, corporations and government contractors from spending money deducted from an employee's paycheck for political purposes.

Hardly sounds controversial, as it treats corporations and unions equally and individuals are still allowed to voluntarily donate money to causes they individually feel strongly about — only the coercive withholding of "dues" for political purposes will be eliminated.

Public-sector unions are understandably up in arms about this proposition as it would crimp their ability to effectively tax their members for self-serving political purposes, as they have done so successfully over time.

If you listen to the barrage of public union-financed "No on 32" ads, you would think that the clichéd "Wall Street Firms," "Big Oil" and "Billionaires" were running California.

A look at facts shows otherwise: the "Big Money Talks" report, published by the non-partisan California Fair Political Practices Commission, reveals the No. 1 special interest, in terms of political spending over the past decade, was the California Teachers Association. It spent $211.8 million dollars to influence election outcomes in its favor, including spending over $50 million alone defeating Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2005 slate of reforms.

The CTA was able to reduce the "Terminator" to an impotent "girly-man" with its dues-fueled ad blitz. That is a powerful special interest.

Journalist Troy Senik calls the CTA "a political behemoth that blocks meaningful education reform, protects failing and even criminal educators." It should come as no surprise then, that it is the biggest funder of the aggressive "No on Prop. 32" campaign.

So far, according to Ballotpedia, the CTA has made a $18.2 million "investment" toward keeping the dysfunctional status quo intact. The SEIU, AFSCME and a raft of other public-sector unions, have collectively raised a warchest of $45.6 million to convince voters that they are the defenders of "working families."

The outcome of Proposition 32 will determine whether California charts a new course, relatively free of special interest spending, or continues to founder on the shoals of the dysfunctional status quo.

Unfortunately, our county supervisors have revealed their true allegiance by unanimously recommending against Proposition 32, a vote of solidarity with public-sector unions over the greater good of citizen taxpayers.

Voters should take the time to educate themselves on Proposition 32, follow the special interest trail of money and then vote accordingly — "yes" on Proposition 32.

Ken Broad of Mill Valley is an investment analyst and a political activist.